Advertisement

“Green” food processing technologies: factors affecting consumers’ acceptance

  • Elisabeth Gauthier
Chapter
Part of the Food Engineering Series book series (FSES)

Abstract

Scientists and companies are very focused on designing and implementing environmentally friendly food processing technologies, hoping (among other objectives) to meet consumer demand. Paradoxically, little is known on how consumers actually see these green technologies. However, from what is known of their understanding of specific food technologies and the ecolabels used on agri-food products, many consumers do not readily associate food technology with environmental protection.

Keywords

Fair Trade Green Product Food Technology Green Technology Environmental Management System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anonymous 2009. Greenwash fears have equipment makers rolling ahead slowly. Engineering News Record 263(2): 68.Google Scholar
  2. Ader, C.R. 1995. A longitudinal study of agenda setting for the issue of environmental pollution. Journalism and Mass Communication 72: 300–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, A. 1997. Media, culture and the environment. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  4. Andrews, C., and D. DeVault. 2009. Green niche market development a model with heterogeneous agents. Journal of Industrial Ecology 13(2): 326–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arvanitoyannis, I.S., A. Krystallis, and A. Kapirti. 2003. Health and environmental consciousness. Greek consumers’ attitudes toward the organic, HACCP and ISO 14000 certifications on food. International Journal of Food and Agribusiness Marketing 15(1–2): 93–136.Google Scholar
  6. Ausubel, J.H., and H.E. Sladovich. 1989. Technology and environment. Washington, DC: National Academy of Engineering.Google Scholar
  7. Bauer, M.W., M. Kohring, A. Allansdottir, and J. Gutterling. 2001. The dramatisation of biotechnology in elite mass media. In Biotechnology 1996–2000. The years of controversy, ed. G. Gaskell and M.W. Bauer. London: Science Museum.Google Scholar
  8. Bord, R.J., and R.E. O’Connor. 1990. Risk communication, knowledge, and attitudes. Explaining reactions to a technology perceived as risky. Risk Analysis 10(4): 499–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borra, S. 2009. The convergence of health and wellness and the environment. Drivers behind consumer choice. Paper presented at the IFT Annual Meeting & Food Expo, June 7, 2009, Anaheim, CA.Google Scholar
  10. Boykoff, M.T. 2008. Lost in translation? United States television news coverage of anthropogenic climate change, 1995–2004. Climatic Change 86(1–2): 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boykoff, M.T., and J.M. Boykoff. 2004. Balance as bias. Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change 14(2): 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brooks, P. 1972. The house of life. Rachel Carson at work. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  13. Bruhn, C.M. 2009. Understanding ‘green’ consumers. Food Technology 63(7): 28–35.Google Scholar
  14. Bruhn, C.M., and J.W. Noell. 1987. Consumer in-store response to irradiated papayas. Food Technology 41: 83–87.Google Scholar
  15. Butz, P., E.C. Needs, A. Baron, O. Bayer, B. Geisel, B. Gupta, U. Oltersdorf, and B. Tauscher. 2003. Consumer attitudes to high pressure food processing. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment 1(1): 30–34.Google Scholar
  16. Cardello, A.V. 2000. Consumer attitudes and expectations toward nonthermal and other novel food processing techniques. Paper presented at the IFT Nonthermal processing division workshop on non-thermal processing of food, January 26–27, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
  17. Cardello, A.V. 2003. Consumer concerns and expectations about novel food processing technologies. Effects on product liking. Appetite 40(3): 217–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cardello, A.V., H.G. Schutz, and L.L. Lesher. 2007. Consumer perceptions of foods processed by innovative and emerging technologies. A conjoint analytic study. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 8(1): 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carrigan, M., and A. Attalla. 2001. The myth of the ethical consumer. Do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Market 18(7): 560–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Champion, E., and C. Gendron. 2002. La “durabilité” selon Monsanto. Prémisses d’une privatisation des problèmes environnementaux pour un renforcement politique de l’entreprise privée. Cahiers de la Chaire de responsabilité sociale et de développement durable—Collection recherche (3-2002).Google Scholar
  21. Chen, M.F., and H.L. Li. 2007. The consumer’s attitude toward genetically modified foods in Taiwan. Food Quality and Preference 18(4): 662–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Clery, E., and R. Bailey. 2010. Food technologies, findings from the 2008 British social attitudes survey. London: Food Standards Agency.Google Scholar
  23. Coddington, W. 1990. It’s no fad. Environmentalism is now a fact of corporate life. Marketing News 24(21): 7.Google Scholar
  24. Cormick, C. 2007. Public attitudes towards GM crops and food. Agricultural Sciences 21(2): 24–30.Google Scholar
  25. Costa-Font, M., J.M. Gil, and W.B. Traill. 2008. Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food. Review and implications for food policy. Food Policy 33(2): 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Crane, A. 2000. Facing the backlash. Green marketing and strategic reorientation in the 1990s. Journal of Strategic Marketing 8(3): 277–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Curry, A. 2007. Consumer responses to environmental and ethical issues. London: Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust/Henley Centre HeadlightVision, p. 35.Google Scholar
  28. De Boer, M., M. McCarthy, M. Brennan, A.L. Kelly, and C. Ritson. 2005. Public understanding of food risk issues and food risk messages on the island of Ireland. The views of food safety experts. Journal of Food Safety 25: 241–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. de Jonge, J., H. van Trijp, E. Goddard, and L. Frewer. 2008. Consumer confidence in the safety of food in canada and the Netherlands. The validation of a generic framework. Food Quality and Preference 19(5): 439–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. de Jonge, J., H. Van Trijp, R.J. Renes, and L.J. Frewer. 2010. Consumer confidence in the safety of food and newspaper coverage of food safety issues. A longitudinal perspective. Risk Analysis 30(1): 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Defra. 2008. A framework for pro-environmental behaviours. http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/social/behaviour/documents/behaviours-jan08-report.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2010.
  32. Delgado-Gutierrez, C., and C.M. Bruhn. 2008. Health professionals’ attitudes and educational needs regarding new food processing technologies. Journal of Food Science Education 7(4): 78–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Deliza, R., M.C. da Costa, A. Rosenthal, D. Hedderley, and L. Frewer. 2003a. Acceptance of novel food technologies. Comparison between Brazilian and British consumers. http://www.foodsciencecentral.com/fsc/ixid12294. Accessed 2 June 2010.
  34. Deliza, R., A. Rosenthal, and A.L.S. Silva. 2003b. Consumer attitude towards information on nonconventional technology. Trends in Food Science and Technology 14(1–2): 43–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Demeritt, L. 2008. The new greening of the food industry. Sustainability from a consumer perspective. Paper presented at the IFT Annual Meeting & Food Expo, July 1st, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  36. Diamantopoulos, A., B.B. Schlegelmilch, R.R. Sinkovics, and G.M. Bohlen. 2003. Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research 56(6): 465–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Dunlap, R.E. 2002. En enduring concern. Public Perspectives 13(5): 10–14.Google Scholar
  38. Dunlap, R., and K. van Liere. 1978. The new environmental paradigm. A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. The Journal of Environmental Education 9(10–19).Google Scholar
  39. Dunlap, R.E., and R. York. 2008. The globalization of environmental concern and the limits of the postmaterialist values explanation. Evidence from four multinational surveys. Sociological Quarterly 49(3): 529–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ecolabel index. 2010. http://www.ecolabelindex.com/. Accessed 8 Sept 2010.
  41. Eden, S. 2011. Food labels as boundary objects. How consumers make sense of organic and functional foods. Public Understanding of Science 20(2):179–194.Google Scholar
  42. Elkington, J., and J. Hailes. 1988. The green consumer guide. London: Victor Gollanz.Google Scholar
  43. Entman, R.M. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4): 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Essoussi, L.H., and M. Zahaf. 2009. Exploring the decision-making process of Canadian organic food consumers. Motivations and trust issues. Qualitative Market Research 12(4): 443–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. European Commission. 2008. Special Eurobarometer 295. Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_295_en.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept 2010.
  46. Fierman, J. 1991. The big muddle in green marketing. Fortune 123(11): 91–101.Google Scholar
  47. Fischhoff, B., P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read, and B. Combs. 1978. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences 9: 127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Fishbein, M., and M.C. Yzer. 2003. Using theory to design effective health behavior interventions. Communication Theory 13(2): 164–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Food Marketing Institute. 1996–1999. Trends in the United States. Consumer attitudes and the supermarket. Washington, DC: Food Marketing Institute.Google Scholar
  50. Food Marketing Institute. 2009. Grocery shopper trends 2009. Washington, DC: Food Marketing Institute.Google Scholar
  51. Fotopoulos, C., and A. Krystallis. 2002. Purchasing motives and profile of Greek organic consumer. A countrywide survey. British Food Journal 104(9): 730–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Fox, J.A., C.M. Bruhn, and S.G. Sapp. 2001. Consumer acceptance of irradiated meats. In Interdisciplinary food safety research, ed. N.H. Hooker and E.A. Murano. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  53. Frentzen, P.D., A. Majchrowicz, J.C. Buzby, B. Imhoff, and Foodnet Working Group. 2000. Consumer acceptance of irradiated meat and poultry products. Issues in food safety economics. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 757. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Services, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  54. Frewer, L.J., M.M. Raats, and R. Shepherd. 1993. Modelling the media. The transmission of risk information in the British Quality Press. IMA Journal of Mathematics Applied in Business and Industry 5(1): 235–247.Google Scholar
  55. Frewer, L.J., C. Howard, D. Hedderley, and R. Shepherd. 1996. What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis 16(4): 473–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Frewer, L.J., D. Hedderley, C. Howard, and R. Shepherd. 1997a. “Objection” mapping in determining group and individual concerns regarding genetic engineering. Agricuture and Human Values 14: 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Frewer, L.J., C. Howard, and R. Shepherd. 1997b. Public concerns in the united kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering. Risk, benefit and ethics. Science Technology and Human Values 22(1): 98–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Frewer, L.J., C. Howard, and J.I. Aaron. 1998. Consumer acceptance of transgenic crops. Pesticide Science 52(4): 388–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Frewer, L.J., S. Miles, and R. Marsh. 2002. The media and genetically modified foods. Evidence in support of social amplification of risk. Risk Analysis 22(4): 701–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Friedman, M. 1970. A Friedman doctrine. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine: (Sept 13) SM17.Google Scholar
  61. Gaskell, G., N. Allum, M. Bauer, J. Durant, A. Allansdottir, H. Bonfadelli, D. Boy, S. de Cheveigne, B. Fjaestad, J.M. Gutteling, J. Hampel, E. Jelsoe, J.C. Jesuino, M. Kohring, N. Kronberger, C. Midden, T.H. Nielsen, A. Przestalski, T. Rusanen, G. Sakellaris, H. Torgersen, T. Twardowski, and W. Wagner. 2000. Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology 18(9): 935–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Gaskell, G., A. Allansdottir, N. Allum, C. Corchero, C. Fischler, J. Hampel, J. Jackson, N. Kronberger, N. Mejlgaard, G. Revuelta, C. Schreiner, S. Stares, H. Thogersen, and W. Wagner. 2006. Europeans and biotechnology in 2005. Patterns and trends, Eurobarometer, vol. 64.3. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  63. Gauthier, É. 2010. Social representations of risk in the food irradiation debate in Canada, 1986–2002. Science Communication 32(3): 295–329.Google Scholar
  64. Gauthier, É. 2008. Les représentations sociales du risque dans le débat public sur l’irradiation des aliments au Canada. Thesis. Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal.Google Scholar
  65. Geagan, K. 2009. Why RDS are perfectly poised for going green. American Dietetic Association Times 6: 22.Google Scholar
  66. Gitlin, T. 1980. The whole world is watching. Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  67. GlobeScan, BBC World Service. 2009. Climate concerns continue to increase: Global poll. http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbc2009_climate_change/. Accessed 5 Jan 2010.
  68. Grankvist, G., and A. Biel. 2001. The importance of beliefs and purchase criteria in the choice of eco-labeled food products. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21: 405–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Greenpeace. 2010. Stop greenwash. http://www.stopgreenwash.org/. Accessed 18 Feb 2010.
  70. Grunert, K., H. Sondergaard, and J. Scholderer. 2004. How can we know what we like when we don’t understand it? Consumer attitude formation towards complex technical issues, vol. 74. Aarhus V, Denmark: MAPP—Centre for Research on Customer Relations in the Food Sector, Aarhus School of Business.Google Scholar
  71. Gunes, G., and M.D. Tekin. 2006. Consumer awareness and acceptance of irradiated foods. Results of a survey conducted on Turkish consumers. LWT Food Science and Technology 39: 443–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Hansen, A. 1993. Greenpeace and press coverage of environmental issues. In The mass media and environmental issues, ed. A. Hansen. Leicester: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Hartman Group. 2008. Organic 2008. Topline insights. Bellevue: The Hartman Group Inc.Google Scholar
  74. Hayes, D.J., J.A. Fox, and J.F. Shogren. 2002. Experts and activists. How information affects the demand for food irradiation. Food Policy 27: 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Heller, R. 2003. Gm nation? The findings of the public debate. U.-K. Department for Trade and Industry, (DTI). London, p. 66.Google Scholar
  76. Henson, S., M. Annou, J. Cranfield, and J. Ryks. 2008. Understanding consumer attitudes toward food technologies in Canada. Risk Analysis 28(6): 1601–1617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Hirsh, J.B. 2010. Personality and environmental concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30: 245–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Hoffman, A. 2001. From heresy to dogma. An institutional history of corporate environmentalism. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Holcomb, J., and Corporate greenwashers and environmental groups. 2008. Environmentalism and the internet. Contemporary Justice Review 11(3): 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Hossain, F., and B. Onyango. 2004. Product attributes and consumer acceptance of nutritionally enhanced genetically modified foods. International Journal of Consumer Studies 28(3): 255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Howard, P.H., and P. Allen. 2010. Beyond organic and fair trade? An analysis of ecolabel preferences in the United States. Rural Sociology 75(2): 244–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Huang, C. 1996. Consumer preference and attitudes toward organically grown produce. European Review of Agricultural Economics 23: 331–342.Google Scholar
  83. Hwang, Y.-J., B. Roe, and M.F. Teisl. 2005. An empirical analysis of United States consumers’ concerns about eight food production and processing technologies. AgBioforum 8(1): 40–49.Google Scholar
  84. Jackson, T. 2005. Motivating sustainable consumption. A review of evidence on consumer behaviour and behavioural change. Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey. http://www.c2p2online.com/documents/MotivatingSC.pdf. Accessed 5 Oct 2010.
  85. Jean, F. 1999. L’empoisonnement par le lait. L’impact de la campagne du lait pur sur la lutte à la mortalité infantile au Québec, 1830–1930. Le cas de Montréal. Thesis, Sherbrooke University, Sherbrooke.Google Scholar
  86. Johnston, J. 2008. The citizen-consumer hybrid. Ideological tensions and the case of whole foods market. Theory and Society 37(3): 229–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Jørgensen, S., G. Martín-Herrán, and G. Zaccour. 2010. Dynamic games in the economics and management of pollution. Environment Modeling and Assessment 15(6): 433–467.Google Scholar
  88. Kangun, N., and M.J. Polonsky. 1995. Regulation of experimental marketing claims. A comparative perspective. International Journal of Advertising 14(1): 1–24.Google Scholar
  89. Kasperson, R.E., O. Renn, P. Slovic, H.S. Brown, J. Emel, R. Goble, J.X. Kasperson, and S. Ratick. 1988. The social amplification of risk. A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis 8(2): 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Kilbourne, W., S. Beckmann, A. Lewis, and Y. van Dam. 2001. A multinational examination of the role of the dominant social paradigm in environmental attitudes of university students. Environment and Behavior 33(2): 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Knight, A. 2007. Do worldviews matter? Post-materialist, environmental, and scientific/technological worldviews and support for agricultural biotechnology applications. Journal of Risk Research 10(8): 1047–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Lea, E., and A. Worsley. 2008. Australian consumers’ food-related environmental beliefs and behaviours. Appetite 50(2–3): 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Lee, C.-J., D.A. Scheufele, and B.V. Lewenstein. 2005. Public attitudes toward emerging technologies. Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication 27(2): 240–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Lillford, P.J., and M.F. Edwards. 1997. Clean technology in food processing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences 355(1728): 1363–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Linné, O. 1993. Professional practice and organization. Environmental broadcasters and their sources. In The mass media and environmental issues, ed. A. Hansen. Leicester: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Lockie, S., K. Lyons, G. Lawrence, and K. Mummery. 2002. Eating ‘green. Motivations behind organic food consumption in Australia. Sociologia Ruralis 42(1): 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Loureiro, M., and M. Bugbee. 2005. Enhanced GM foods. Are consumers ready to pay for the potential benefits of biotechnology? Journal of Consumer Affairs 39: 52–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Lowe, P. 1992. Industrial agriculture and environmental regulation. A new agenda for rural sociology. Sociologia Ruralis 32(1): 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Lowe, P., J. Phillipson, and R.P. Lee. 2008. Socio-technical innovation for sustainable food chains. Roles for social science. Trends in Food Science and Technology 19(5): 226–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Lyndhurst, B. 2009. An evidence review of public attitudes to emerging food technologies. London: Food Standard Agency/Social Science Research Unit.Google Scholar
  101. Marette, S., J. Roosen, A. Bieberstein, S. Blanchemanche, and F. Vandermoere. 2009. Impact of environmental, societal and health information on consumers’ choices for nanofood. Journal of Agriculture and Food Industrial Organization 7(2): Article 11. http://www.bepress.com/jafio/vol7/iss2/art11/.
  102. Mason, C.F. 2006. An economic model of ecolabeling. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 11(2): 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Massoud, M.A., R. Fayad, M. El-Fadel, and R. Kamleh. 2010. Drivers, barriers and incentives to implementing environmental management systems in the food industry. A case of Lebanon. Journal of Cleaner Production 18(3): 200–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Mazur, A. 1987. Putting radon on the public’s risk agenda. Science Technology and Human Values 12: 86–93.Google Scholar
  105. Mazur, A., and J. Lee. 1993. Sounding the global alarm. Environmental issues in the US national news. Social Studies of Science 23(4): 681–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. McCombs, M., and S.I. Ghanem. 2003. The convergence of agenda setting and framing. In Framing public life. Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world, ed. S.D. Reese, O.H. Gandy, and A.E. Grant. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  107. McGrath, A.J. 1992. Marketin’ of the green. Sales and Marketing Management, 144(12): 31–32.Google Scholar
  108. Mellman Group. 2006. Public sentiment about genetically modified food. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. Washington, DC: Mellman Group.Google Scholar
  109. Mendleson, N., and M.J. Polonsky. 1995. Using strategic alliances to develop credible green marketing. Journal of Consumer Market 12(2): 4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Menon, A., and A. Menon. 1997. Enviropreneurial marketing strategy. The emergence of corporate environmentalism as market strategy. Journal of Marketing 61(1): 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Midden, C.J.H., D. Boy, E.F. Einsiedel, B. Fjœstad, M. Liakopoulos, J.D. Miller, S. Öhman, and W. Wagner. 2002. The structure of public perceptions. In Biotechnology. The making of a global controversy, ed. M.W. Bauer and G. Gaskell. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  112. Miles, S., and L.J. Frewer. 2001. Investigating specific concerns about different food hazards. Food Quality and Preference 12: 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Miles, S., D.S. Braxton, and L.J. Frewer. 1999. Public perceptions about microbiological hazards in food. British Food Journal 101(10): 744–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Mintel. 1995. The second green consumer report. London: Mintel.Google Scholar
  115. Mintel. 2006. Green living. US Marketing Research Report, London.Google Scholar
  116. Monsanto Chemical Company. 1962. The desolate year. Monsanto Magazine 40(10): 4–9.Google Scholar
  117. National Consumer Council. 1996. Green claims. A consumer investigation into marketing claims about the environment. London: National Consumer Council.Google Scholar
  118. Nelkin, D. 1987. Selling science. How the press covers science and technology. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  119. Roper Organization. 1990. The environment. Public attitudes and individual behaviour. New York: Roper Organization/SC Johnson & Son.Google Scholar
  120. Ottman, J.A. 1994. Green marketing. Chicago: NTC Business Books.Google Scholar
  121. Page, G., and H. Fearn. 2005. Corporate reputation. What do consumers really care about? Journal of Advertising Research 45(3): 305–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Pearce, F. 1990. The consumers are not so green. New Scientist 1721: 13–14.Google Scholar
  123. Peattie, K. 1995. Environmental marketing management. London: Pitman.Google Scholar
  124. Peattie, K., and A. Crane. 2005. Green marketing. Legend, myth, farce or prophesy? Qualitative Market Research 8(4): 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Pfeifer, S., and R. Sullivan. 2008. Public policy, institutional investors and climate change. A UK case-study. Climatic Change 89(3–4): 245–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Plant, B. 2010. Comment se fier à une certification? http://ethiquette.info/fr/Comment-se-fier-%C3%A0-une-certification%3F. Accessed 25 May 2010.
  127. Porjes, S. 2007. Ethical consumers and corporate responsibility. The market and trends for ethical products in food and beverage, personal care and household items, Packaged facts. Rockville: MarketResearch.com Inc.Google Scholar
  128. Priest, S. 2006. The North American opinion climate for nanotechnology and its products. Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 8: 563–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Protess, D.L., F.L. Cook, T.R. Curtin, M.T. Gordon, D.R. Leff, M.E. Mccombs, and P. Miller. 1987. The impact of investigative reporting on public opinion and policymaking targeting toxic waste. Public Opinion Quarterly 51(2): 166–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Prothero, A., P. McDonagh, and K. Peattie. 1994. Green marketing communications. Dressing windows or opening doors? In Marketing: Unity in diversity. Proceedings of the 1994 marketing education group annual conference, ed. J.E.A. Bell. University of Ulster.Google Scholar
  131. Québec Vrai. 2010. Modèle de plan de préparation biologique. http://www.quebecvrai.org/getfile.php?file=pp--mod1003.doc. Accessed 11 June 2010.
  132. Research Alert. 1990. Environmentalism and Americans. A guide to the foremost trend of our time. Long Island City: Research Alert.Google Scholar
  133. Rimal, A.P., W. Moon, and S. Balasubramanian. 2005. Agro-biotechnology and organic food purchase in the United Kingdom. British Food Journal 107(2): 84–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Roberts, J.A. 1996. Green consumers in the 1990s. Profile and implications for advertising. Journal of Business Research 36(3): 217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Roberts, J.A., and D.R. Bacon. 1997. Exploring the subtle relationships between environmental concern and ecologically conscious consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research 40(1): 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Robinson, R., and C. Smith. 2002. Psychosocial and demographic variables associated with consumer intention to purchase sustainably produced foods as defined by the Midwest food alliance. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 34(6): 316–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Roth, B. 2009. Greenwashing’s two-edged sword. Triple Pundit. People planet profit. http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/12/greenwashings-two-edged-sword/. Accessed 16 Sept 2010.
  138. Sadat, T. 2004. Do we need x-rays? Radiation Physics and Chemistry 71(1–2): 545–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Sapp, S.G. 2003. A comparison of alternative theoretical explanations of consumer food safety assessments. International Journal of Consumer Studies 27(1): 34–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Sapp, S.G., and W.J. Harrod. 1990. Consumer acceptance of irradiated food. A study of symbolic adoption. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics 14: 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Sapp, S.G., and P.F. Korsching. 2004. The social fabric and innovation diffusion. Symbolic adoption of food irradiation. Rural Sociology 69(3): 347–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Sapp, S.G., W.J. Harrod, and L.-J. Zhao. 1994. Social construction of consumer risk assessments. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics 18: 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Sapp, S.G., W.J. Harrod, and L.-J. Zhao. 1995. Social demographic and attitudinal determinants of consumer acceptance of food irradiation. Agribusiness 11(2): 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Schot, J., and K. Fischer. 1993. The greening of the industrial firm. In Environmental strategies for industry, ed. K. Fischer and J. Schot. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  145. Schutz, H.G., C.M. Bruhn, and K.V. Diaz-Knauf. 1989. Consumer attitudes towards irradiated foods. Effects of labeling and benefits information. Food Technology 43(10): 80–86.Google Scholar
  146. Sen, S., and C.B. Bhattacharya. 2001. Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Market Research 38(2): 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Siegrist, M. 1998. Belief in gene technology. The influence of environmental attitudes and gender. Personality and Individual Differences 24: 861–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Siegrist, M. 2008. Factors influencing public acceptance of innovative food technologies and products. Trends in Food Science and Technology 19(11): 603–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Siegrist, M., M.-E. Cousin, H. Kastenholz, and A. Wiek. 2007. Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging. The influence of affect and trust. Appetite 49: 459–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Siegrist, M., N. Stampfli, H. Kastenholz, and C. Keller. 2008. Perceived risks and perceived benefits of different nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging. Appetite 51(2): 283–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Simmons Market Research Bureau. 1991. Study of media and markets. New York: Syndicated division of Simmons.Google Scholar
  152. Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236: 280–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1985. Characterizing perceived risk. In Perilous progress. Managing the hazards of technology, ed. R.W. Kates, C. Hohenemser, and J.X. Kasperson. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  154. Soroka, S.N. 2002. Issue attributes and agenda-setting by media, the public, and policymakers in canada. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 14: 264–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Steger, M.A.E., J.C. Pierce, B.S. Steel, and N.P. Lovrich. 1989. Political culture, postmaterial values, and the new environmental paradigm. A comparative analysis of Canada and the United States. Political Behaviour 11(3): 233–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Stisser, P. 1994. A deeper shade of green. American Demographics 16: 24.Google Scholar
  157. Strategic Alliance for Healthy Food and Activity Environment. 2009. Setting the record straight. Nutrition and health professionals define healthful food. http://eatbettermovemore.org/sa/documents/SA_SettingtheRecordStraight_090209.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2010.
  158. Tankard, J.W. 2003. The empirical approach to the study of media framing. In Framing public life. Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world, ed. S.D. Reese, O.H. Gandy, and A.E. Grant. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  159. Teisl, M.F., B. Roe, and R.L. Hicks. 2002. Can eco-labels tune a market? Evidence from dolphin-safe labeling. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43(3): 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Ten Eyck, T.A. 1999. Shaping a food safety debate. Control efforts of newspaper reporters and sources in the food irradiation controversy. Science Communication 20(4): 426–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Ten Eyck, T.A. 2002. Food irradiation in the news. The cultural clash of a post-harvest technology. Agricuture and Human Values 19: 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Ten Eyck, T.A., and F.A. Deseran. 2001. In the words of the experts. The interpretive process of the food irradiation debate. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 36: 821–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Terrachoice Environmental Marketing. 2009. The seven sins of greenwashing. Environmental claims in consumer markets. Summary report North America. http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/findings/greenwashing-report-2009/. Accessed 9 Sept 2010.
  164. Thøgersen, J. 2006. Media attention and the market for ‘green’ consumer products. Business Strategy and Environment 15: 145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Thompson, J. 2009. Energy use in transportation. Davis: University of California.Google Scholar
  166. Thomsen, M.R., M. Longstreth, and J.D. Miller. 2003. Media coverage of food irradiation. Food Protection Trends 23(3): 243–251.Google Scholar
  167. Townsend, E., D.D. Clarke, and B. Travis. 2004. Effects of context and feelings on perceptions of genetically modified food. Risk Analysis 24: 1369–1384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Traill, W.B., S.R. Jaeger, W.M.S. Yee, C. Valli, L.O. House, J.L. Lusk, M. Moore, and J.L. Morrow Jr. 2004. Categories of GM risk-benefit perceptions and their antecedents. AgBioforum 7(4): 176–186.Google Scholar
  169. Van Kleef, E., L.J. Frewer, G.M. Chryssochoidis, J.R. Houghton, S. Korzen Bohr, T. Krystallis, J. Lassen, U. Pfenning, and G. Rowe. 2006. Perceptions of food risk management among key stakeholders. Results from a cross-European study. Appetite 47(1): 46–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. Vandermerwe, S., and M. Oliff. 1990. Customers drive corporations green. Long Range Planning 23(6): 10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Verbeke, W. 2005. Consumer acceptance of functional foods: Socio-demographic, cognitive and attitudinal determinants. Food Quality and Preference 16: 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Wagner, W. 2007. Vernacular science knowledge. Its role in everyday life communication. Public Understanding of Science 16(1): 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Wagner, W., N. Kronberger, N.C. Allum, S. de Cheveigné, C. Diego, G. Gaskell, M. Heinßen, C.J.H. Midden, M. Ødegaard, S. Öhman, B. Rizzo, T. Rusanen, and A. Stathopoulou. 2002. Padora’s genes. Images of genes and nature. In Biotechnology. The making of a global controversy, ed. M.W. Bauer and G. Gaskell. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  174. Waterviews, Globe Scan. 2009. Water issues research. http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/waterviews/. Accessed 9 Sept 2010.
  175. West, G.E., and B. Larue. 2005. Determinants of anti-GM food activism. Journal of Public Affairs 5(3/4): 236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. Wong, V., W. Turner, and P. Stoneman. 1996. Marketing strategies and market prospects for environmentally-friendly consumer products. British Journal of Management 7(3): 263–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Worcester, R. 1993. Public and elite attitudes to environmental issues. London: MORI.Google Scholar
  178. Wynne, B. 1995. Public understanding of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, ed. S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen, and T. Pinch. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  179. Young, A.L. 2003. Food irradiation. After 35 years, have we made progress? A government perspective. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 10(2): 82–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. Zucker, H.G. 1978. The variable nature of news media influence. In Communication yearbook, vol. 2. New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Her Majesty the Queen, in Right of Canada 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Food Research and Development CentreAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaSaint HyacintheCanada

Personalised recommendations